NYC lawsuit--very strange event

If the witness is willing to testify, a party wants to call him, and his testimony is relevant, it's pretty peculiar for a judge to bar it. I could see an argument that the subject of the testimony is irrelevant, but Weinstein says the city should call someone else to testify to it, so he can't see it as irrelevant. Maybe the Mayor didn't really want to testify, so Weinstein has been tipped to that. Or maybe it's just the judge running plaintiffs' case for them, as he has in the past. I heard from an attorney who'd defended on a gun lawsuit in this court, and at the end of plaintiff's case he moved for judgment as a matter of law, since they hadn't proven their claim. Weinstein said he agreed they hadn't proven it, but they could prove it if they were establish this, and that, and the other thing, and he would allow them to reopen their case to prove what he had just ruled would be sufficient!

As you wrote "the city should call", I assume he was the city/plaintiff's witness.

Would it be more strange if Weinstein refused to call a defendant's witness?

As the whole operation seemed to have been orchestrated by Bloomberg (as opposed to by underlings where Bloomberg is just top guy); and as Bloomberg's deposition showed more cluelessness than you'd expect; I think that the defendant ought to call Bloomberg.